|
Is Beirut Burning? by Uri Avnery
An
interesting formulation. A few hours after the bombing, Nazrallah had
given an interview to Aljazeera television. Not only did he look alive,
but even composed and confident. He spoke about the bombardment - proof
that the interview was recorded on the same day. So
what does "it seems that" mean? Very simple: Nasrallah
pretends to be alive, but you can't believe an Arab. Everyone knows that
Arabs always lie. That's in their very nature, as Ehud Barak once
pronounced. THE
KILLING of the man is a national aim, almost the main aim of the war.
This is, perhaps, the first war in history waged by a state in order to
kill one person. Until now, only the Mafia thought along those lines.
Even the British in World War II did not proclaim that their aim was to
kill Hitler. On the contrary, they wanted to catch him alive, in order
to put him on trial. Probably that's what the Americans wanted, too, in
their war against Saddam Hussein. But
our ministers have officially decided that that is the aim. There is not
much novelty in that: successive Israeli governments have adopted a
policy of killing the leaders of opposing groups. Our army has killed,
among others, Hizbullah leader Abbas Mussawi, PLO no. 2 Abu Jihad, as
well as Sheik Ahmad Yassin and other Hamas leaders. Almost all
Palestinians, and not only they, are convinced that Yassir Arafat was
also murdered. And
the results? The place of Mussawi was filled by Nasrallah, who is far
more able. Sheik Yassin was succeeded by far more radical leaders.
Instead of Arafat we got Hamas. As
in other political matters, a primitive military mindset governs this
reasoning too. A
PERSON returning here after a long absence and seeing our TV screens
might get the impression that a military junta is governing On
all TV channels, every evening, one sees a parade of military brass in
uniform. They explain not only the day's military actions, but also
comment on political matters and lay down the political and propaganda
line. During
all the other hours of broadcasting time, a dozen or so have-been
generals repeat again and again the message of the army commanders.
(Some of them don't look particularly intelligent - not to say downright
stupid. It is frightening to think that these people were once in a
position to decide who would live and who would die.) True,
we are a democracy. The army is completely subject to the civilian
establishment. According to the law, the cabinet is the "supreme
commander" of the army (which in Ehud
Olmert presents himself as the heir to Churchill ("blood, sweat and
tears"). That's quite pathetic enough. Then Amir Peretz puffs up
his chest and shoots threats in all directions, and that's even more
pathetic, if that's possible. He resembles nothing so much as a fly
standing on the ear of an ox and proclaiming: "we are
plowing!" The
Chief-of-Staff announced last week with satisfaction: "The army
enjoys the full backing of the government!" That is also an
interesting formulation. It implies that the army decides what to do,
and the government provides "backing." And that's how it is,
of course. The
other side, too, has been preparing this war for years. Not only did
they build caches of thousands of missiles, but they have also prepared
an elaborate system of Vietnam-style bunkers, tunnels and caves. Our
soldiers are now encountering this system and paying a high price. As
always, our army has treated "the Arabs" with disdain and
discounted their military capabilities. That
is one of the problems of the military mentality. Talleyrand was not
wrong when he said that "war is much too serious a thing to be left
to military men." The mentality of the generals, resulting from
their education and profession, is by nature force-oriented, simplistic,
one-dimensional, not to say primitive. It is based on the belief that
all problems can be solved by force, and if that does not work--then by
more force. That
is well illustrated by the planning and execution of the current war.
This was based on the assumption that if we cause terrible suffering to
the population, they will rise up and demand the removal of Hizbullah. A
minimal understanding of mass psychology would suggest the opposite. The
killing of hundreds of Lebanese civilians, belonging to all the
ethno-religious communities, the turning of the lives of the others into
hell, and the destruction of the life-supporting infrastructure of
Lebanese society will arouse a groundswell of fury and hatred - against
Israel, and not against the heroes, as they see them, who sacrifice
their lives in their defense. The
result will be a strengthening of Hizbullah, not only today, but for
years to come. Perhaps that will be the main outcome of the war, more
important than all the military achievements, if any. And not only in Faced
with the horrors that are shown on all television and many computer
screens, world opinion is also changing. What was seen at the beginning
as a justified response to the capture of the two soldiers now looks
like the barbaric actions of a brutal war-machine. The elephant in a
china shop. Thousands
of e-mail distribution lists have circulated a horrible series of photos
of mutilated babies and children. At the end, there is a macabre photo:
jolly Israeli children writing "greetings" on the artillery
shells that are about to be fired. Then there appears a message:
"Thanks to the children of The
woman who heads the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights has already defined these acts as war crimes--something
that may in future mean trouble for Israeli army officers. IN
GENERAL, when army officers are determining the policy of a nation,
serious moral problems arise. In
war, a commander is obliged to take hard decisions. He sends soldiers
into battle, knowing that many will not return and others will be maimed
for life. He hardens his heart. As General Amos Yaron told his officers
after the Sabra and Shatila massacre: "Our senses have been
blunted!" Years
of the occupation regime in the Palestinian territories have caused a
terrible callousness as far as human lives are concerned. The killing of
ten to twenty Palestinians every day, including women and children, as
happens now in Now
this numbness is revealing itself in Even
the launching of rockets at our towns and villages does not justify this
ignoring of moral considerations in fighting the war. There were other
ways of responding to the Hizbullah provocation, without turning IT
IS almost banal to say that it is easier to start a war than to finish
it. One knows how it starts, it is impossible to know how it will end. Wars
take place in the realm of uncertainty. Unforeseen things happen. Even
the greatest captains in history could not control the wars they
started. War has its own laws. We
started a war of days. It turned into a war of weeks. Now they are
speaking of a war of months. Our army started a "surgical"
action of the Air Force, afterwards it sent small units into All
this time, the Only
one thing is already certain on the 11th day of the war: Nothing good
will come of it. Whatever happens--Hizbullah will emerge strengthened.
If there had been hopes in the past that As
for deterrence: a war in which our huge military machine cannot overcome
a small guerilla organization in 11 days of total war certainly has not
rehabilitated its deterrent power. In this respect, it is not important
how long this war will last and what will be its results--the fact that
a few thousand fighters have withstood the Israeli army for 11 days and
more, has already been imprinted in the consciousness of hundred of
millions of Arabs and Muslims. From
this war nothing good will come--not for
discuss this column in the forum Uri Avnery is a peace activist.
|
